"Photographables" - a question of... linguistic nature...

[Fotowentura]

Hi there,

"All things are photographable", as Garry Winogrand stated.

Now, bear with me. I've been using a somewhat similar "credo" of my own "Photographables are everywhere" for a while now, by which I mean you can find "photographical" beauty in pretty much everything, anywhere.

Having studied English philology I'm educated well enough (language-wise, at least) to know that "photographable" is an adjective and does not officially function as a noun. I do know, however, that English - one of the reasons to love it - allows for some flexibility and accepts unorthodox uses of nouns as verbs, adjectives as nouns, etc.

Having said that and being a non-native speaker of English, I just need to consult you, my kind fellow photography enthusiasts, preferably native speakers of English, and ask you this simple question - does "photographables are everywhere" sound acceptable and - more or less - understandable (given context, of course) to you? Deliberate grammar incorrectness aside, that is. Does it make sense?

PS. Apologies, I know it's not really a photography question but opinions from photographers will be of more use to me than from linguists.

 

[FrancoD]

By stating " "All things are photographable" the writer is using humour to make his point.

You don't mean to say: his pictures are a joke!?

I am not a native English speaker but I tend to like word play so the above works for me.

It is common in advertising to invent a word or mangle an existing one to make it memorable.

For example here in Australia and in UK the price comparison company called Compare The Market use cute puppets meerkats that use expressions like Simpleness , derived from the main character exclamation "simples".

And don't forget Heinz Meanz Beanz !!!

No, I have no idea of who he is or what he does.

I was discussing the use of language.

 

[Marek M]

By stating " "All things are photographable" the writer is using humour to make his point.

You don't mean to say: his pictures are a joke!?

I am not a native English speaker but I tend to like word play so the above works for me.

It is common in advertising to invent a word or mangle an existing one to make it memorable.

For example here in Australia and in UK the price comparison company called Compare The Market use cute puppets meerkats that use expressions like Simpleness , derived from the main character exclamation "simples".

And don't forget Heinz Meanz Beanz !!!

No, I have no idea of who he is or what he does.

I was discussing the use of language.

It was not my post you're replying to. I do not know either.

 

[Ron Poelman]

either for humour or effect. The trick is to be good at it.

To follow up Franco's famous recent examples:
"simples" is excellent; light, naive, funny and easy off the tongue.
"simplesness" is crude, clumsy, unfunny and obviously contrived.

Leave 'em laughing is the key.

--
Ron.
Volunteer, what could possibly go wrong ?

 

[rochester21]

Works well enough for me -- a guy who was raised by an English teacher and was for many years a working editor.

It is an unusual usage and might require a bit of thought, but it works.

Gato

The nation that invented a term like "brexit" can get away with a lot of things, linguistically and otherwise.

It's funny, because english is quite deficient in expressing certain emotions. Elegant yes, but neither intimate nor "sentimental" in any way.

Apart from that area, english is like linguistic lego, a sort of german but more polished.

For instance, i once called a mate of mine "burger boy", a term i never heard before and which translated to my language has absolutely no meaning, but in english it works. It has a certain sense, for some reason.

I think it's because english is a germanic language, but also has latin influences, among others. This allows for unique combinations of words like Britain+Exit=Brexit that manage to have standalone meaning. Can't do that with a latin language. Not usually anyway.

 

[rochester21]

Hi there,

Having studied English philology I'm educated well enough (language-wise, at least) to know that "photographable" is an adjective and does not officially function as a noun. I do know, however, that English - one of the reasons to love it - allows for some flexibility and accepts unorthodox uses of nouns as verbs, adjectives as nouns, etc.

Having said that and being a non-native speaker of English, I just need to consult you, my kind fellow photography enthusiasts, preferably native speakers of English, and ask you this simple question - does "photographables are everywhere" sound acceptable and - more or less - understandable (given context, of course) to you? Deliberate grammar incorrectness aside, that is. Does it make sense?

1. I think you were supposed to tell us about it, since most of us haven't studied "english philology", including the english speakers.

2. You've answered your own question.

 

[FrancoD]

Works well enough for me -- a guy who was raised by an English teacher and was for many years a working editor.

It is an unusual usage and might require a bit of thought, but it works.

Gato

The nation that invented a term like "brexit" can get away with a lot of things, linguistically and otherwise.

It's funny, because english is quite deficient in expressing certain emotions. Elegant yes, but neither intimate nor "sentimental" in any way.

Apart from that area, english is like linguistic lego, a sort of german but more polished.

For instance, i once called a mate of mine "burger boy", a term i never heard before and which translated to my language has absolutely no meaning, but in english it works. It has a certain sense, for some reason.

I think it's because english is a germanic language, but also has latin influences, among others. This allows for unique combinations of words like Britain+Exit=Brexit that manage to have standalone meaning. Can't do that with a latin language. Not normally, anyway.

Lots of words derive from Latin via Middle Ages French and of course from Greek too ( photography, philology,apology )

I wonder if Alexander The Great would understand photographables....

 

[tko]

It is the ongoing acceptance of non-standard usage, bastardized grammar and deliberate misspelling, which constitute the degradation of language over time.

In that case, language has been degrading for thousands of years. And if it wasn't for this degradation, you wouldn't be able to use most of the words in that sentence of yours. Why don't you go and read some Shakespeare in its original form? How about the Bible?

What a fine misconception that language most forever stay fixed.

 

[FrancoD]

It is the ongoing acceptance of non-standard usage, bastardized grammar and deliberate misspelling, which constitute the degradation of language over time.

In that case, language has been degrading for thousands of years. And if it wasn't for this degradation, you wouldn't be able to use most of the words in that sentence of yours. Why don't you go and read some Shakespeare in its original form? How about the Bible?

What a fine misconception that language most forever stay fixed.

Not many people can read classical Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek.

(yes , I know you mean the King James version....)

BTW, contrary to popular belief, the KJ Bible does not have the original words nor the most accurate translation, it was just written in the English language spoken at the time.

 

[rochester21]

It is the ongoing acceptance of non-standard usage, bastardized grammar and deliberate misspelling, which constitute the degradation of language over time.

Wow, wow. Hold on, wait a minute. You sound like a character from Mississippi burning, which i'm watching right now.

I agree in principle with your idea, because most modern languages are fully formed and don't need any further major developments in order for them to be functional. For instance, linguistic imports are less necessary now than they've ever been.

That being said, the native english speakers everywhere have been twisting and tormenting the english language for a very long time now. The same people that proclaim to be defenders of their culture are trashing it, then blaming others for it. You call it "vernacular english" and it originates in the UK, where it is used extensively by natives.

I also have to reiterate the idea that because it is a germanic language, english is quite a bit more modern and adaptable than other languages. Another example, you can say thumb drive and in english it makes sense, despite being a improvised term. Well you can't do that in my latin language.

In this case, you take the bad with the good.

 

[Tom Axford]

Articles by people more knowledgeable than I am:

"Is English Changing?"

"Should we be happy that the English language is changing?"

I have never come across a recognised scholar of the English language who advocates defining what is correct English and freezing the language in that state.

 

[D Cox]

It's certainly understandable, and shorter than "Subjects worthy of photography are everywhere", which is a more correct version but less interesting version.

I still sort of hate it though. I'd say something like "To a photographer, subjects are everywhere." Or "To a photographer, worthy subjects are everywhere."

Actually, I wouldn't.

I'd say "Photographs are everywhere. Go find them."

A photograph is not the same thing as a photographable (or photogenic) subject. You may have left your camera at home, so that the photographable goes unphotographed.

Photographs are in books and magazines, in boxes of old prints, on the sides of buses, on the packages in supermarkets -- but not everywhere.

 

[D Cox]

Works well enough for me -- a guy who was raised by an English teacher and was for many years a working editor.

It is an unusual usage and might require a bit of thought, but it works.

Gato

The nation that invented a term like "brexit" can get away with a lot of things, linguistically and otherwise.

It's funny, because english is quite deficient in expressing certain emotions. Elegant yes, but neither intimate nor "sentimental" in any way.

That's why we import words such as "ennui", "angst" and "schadenfreude".

Apart from that area, english is like linguistic lego, a sort of german but more polished.

For instance, i once called a mate of mine "burger boy", a term i never heard before and which translated to my language has absolutely no meaning, but in english it works. It has a certain sense, for some reason.

I think it's because english is a germanic language, but also has latin influences, among others. This allows for unique combinations of words like Britain+Exit=Brexit that manage to have standalone meaning. Can't do that with a latin language. Not usually anyway.

 

[Fotowentura]

The extent of this discussion and the sheer controversy around both the linguistic aspect and - especially - the sense or meaning of “photographables” is for me only more evidence the concept works and the “credo” (or however you label it) should stay.

I do enjoy playing around with the language - be it English or my native Polish - and I have doubts regarding this phrase being tween/millennial flavored, as has been suggested. I do understand the “butchering-the-language” concern, yet I do not believe using photographable as a noun qualifies as an example of that.

Most of the responders admit they have no problem getting the concept, even if they disagree with it, and that’s what I needed, so thanks.

Whether photographables are or are not everywhere I leave to one’s personal perception and beliefs.

 

[Rail2trail]

/nt

 

[FingerPainter]

It is the ongoing acceptance of non-standard usage, bastardized grammar and deliberate misspelling, which constitute the degradation of language over time.

In that case, language has been degrading for thousands of years. And if it wasn't for this degradation, you wouldn't be able to use most of the words in that sentence of yours. Why don't you go and read some Shakespeare in its original form? How about the Bible?

What a fine misconception that language most forever stay fixed.

Not many people can read classical Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek.

(yes , I know you mean the King James version....)

...

That's interesting. I read the same thing you did and reached the opposite conclusion - that he did indeed mean the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek texts. Perhaps I need more coffee.

Regardless, his main point is correct - that languages continually evolve, whether through changes in usage, importation of foreign terms, or invention of new words for new concepts. One might regard such changes as degradation, but I think evolution would be a better descriptor. Languages adapt to their environment over time to retain utility. I'm inclined to think that a maintenance manual for my car's engine, written exclusively using Koine Greek, would be of limited utility even if I was fluent in the language.

 

[FingerPainter]

It is the ongoing acceptance of non-standard usage, bastardized grammar and deliberate misspelling, which constitute the degradation of language over time.

...

I agree in principle with your idea, because most modern languages are fully formed and don't need any further major developments in order for them to be functional. For instance, linguistic imports are less necessary now than they've ever been.

...

I like the line of your analysis, but disagree with your interpretation of the data.

That is to say, if a language had words to encode all possible concepts it would have no need to change. But it should be quite evident that not all possible thoughts have been thought, let alone encoded, so we are far from having a fully formed language.

 

[FingerPainter]

It's fine. It's meaning is clear. It has practical utility in that it delivers a concept with greater concision than the available alternatives. It doesn't trample on anything but linguistic conservatism.

English is replete with examples of adjectives acquiring usage as a noun.

Just one similar example: edibles.

Of course, since your proposed term is less familiar, and less widely used, some people, who might think of themselves as "purists", will object. Ignore them. There have always been people who stood in the way of progress.

 

[yardcoyote]

Poetic, not literal, and therefore not to everyone's taste.

 

[Dennis]

There have always been people who stood in the way of progress.

Progress is just change that you like.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[yardcoyote]

I actually borrowed that phrasing from a long ago art teacher, who said it about plein air landscape painting. His point was that choice of subject, angle, lighting, significant elements, etc., was 90% or more of what distinguishes one painting of this kind from another, and most of what determines its success.

Nowhere did he mean to suggest that you didn't have to do the work of actually painting it.